Federal and state lawmakers have launched a new drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, reviving a feminist goal that faltered a quarter-century ago when the measure did not gain the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures.

The amendment, which came three states short of enactment in 1982, has been introduced in five state legislatures since January. Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the measure under a new name — the Women’s Equality Amendment — and vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers by the end of the session.

The renewed push to pass the ERA, which passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly in 1972 and was ratified by 35 states before skidding to a halt, highlights liberals’ renewed sense of power since November’s midterm elections. From Capitol Hill to Arkansas, legislators said they are seizing a political opportunity to enshrine women’s rights in the Constitution.

“Elections have consequences, and isn’t it true those consequences are good right now?” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked a mostly female crowd yesterday at a news conference, as the audience cheered. “We are turning this country around, bit by bit, to put it in a more progressive direction.”

The amendment consists of 52 words and has one key line: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” That sentence would subject legal claims of gender discrimination to the same strict scrutiny given by courts to allegations of racial discrimination.

I am not saying this to be a total wise-ass, but it really has been so long since I even thought about this issue that I am having a hard time remembering what exactly the arguments for and against this Amendment are and why it is important to support/oppose the issue. I am sure I had a really strong opinion once on the issue, but I will be damned if I can remember what it was.

*** Update ***

I guess the only real argument (and I had to try, because this just seems so innocuous) I can come up with against the ERA right now is that it is unnecessary. Considering the Republicans have introduced a number of frivolous amendments in the past few years, to include Gay Marriage Amendments and Flag Burning (to name just a few), they are not on very solid ground for opposing the ERA for that reason.

Dude, this amendment died the year I was borned. I don’t think I am physically old enough to have an opinion on it. But, unless I’m totally crazy, I can’t see the bad side of putting racial equality and gender equality on the same footing. What, exactly, is the downside to this?

If this thing passes it may, someday, infringe on the God Given Rights of us White Guys to rule the Planet. Obviously we cannot allow this to happen. If you need to fill in the cracks, quickly, just borrow the talking points from whatever Gun Control proposal you have laying around and you’re most of the way there.

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

I’ll go along with that; it’s not clear to me that such an Amendment would actually have that much effect on our laws as they stand, but I think it’s a net positive.

I am having a hard time remember what exactly the arguments for and against this

The big argument against this at the time was–I believe–that they’d have to let women serve in the military, in combat roles. I’m not sure that that’s even the case, but if they want to serve, I say let them serve.

Oh I can’t wait to see the Freepers and RedStaters whine that what with affirmative action, Terrorist bills-of-rights and now this that the only people who will be left without rights will be white males.

Oh I can’t wait to see the Freepers and RedStaters whine that what with affirmative action, Terrorist bills-of-rights and now this that the only people who will be left without rights will be white males.

Actually, I don’t think that will happen.

In the 1980s when I was in college, conservatives were arguing that women should stay at home barefoot and pregnant and fetch them beers.

They don’t do that today. They abandoned that position because it’s a political loser.

In the 1980s when I was in college, conservatives were arguing that women should stay at home barefoot and pregnant and fetch them beers.

They don’t do that today.

Well, some people still do, like Gary Birdsong (more pictures here) — although he may have changed his mind about the ‘barefoot’ part — but pretty much all the actual college students he encounters repudiate him for it.

How sad it is that the liberal congress is trying to do something that will make so many women unhappy just to please their fringe special interest feminazis. Real ladies are not equal to men because they would not lower themselves to men’s level, and they get all the special protection they need from their husbands. But it is just like the govenrment to try to ruin everything that is special and feminine about American Womanhood. :(

While there is not much of a need for this law (and I don’t know of any adverse results from the many states that have the equivalent of the ERA in their constitutions), it is an interesting moment in the culture war. The fevered predictions of Schlafly et al. just sound ridiculous today.

Now if they could make it to protect against discrimination on the basis of sex or gender that would make for a very interesting fight.

Which is just a way to lure more men in. Believe me I used to think this was a pretty sucky thing myself but then I realized the genius of “Ladies nights” and such. It’s not discrimination, it’s just good business.

EEEE, women also have the right to be cranky for a few days each month. Don’t forget that.

Which is just a way to lure more men in. Believe me I used to think this was a pretty sucky thing myself but then I realized the genius of “Ladies nights” and such. It’s not discrimination, it’s just good business.

It’s not just good business – it helps us ugly guys get lucky from time to time without having to use roofies.

That sentence would subject legal claims of gender discrimination to the same strict scrutiny given by courts to allegations of racial discrimination.

That’s a pretty big deal to women trying to fight discrimination. Presuming that this would only be a symbolic gesture isn’t accurate, because it does have legal consequences.

My guess is that most courts grant cases of sex discrimination the same strict scrutiny as racial discrimination already, but they don’t have to. Understandably, I’d prefer it were law, as opposed to counting on the good will of the courts, should I ever have need to file a suit.

thank you EEEE for showing the MORAL DEPRAVITY that results from so called “womens rights” You see here that all they amount to is for women to be taken more advantage of s*xually by men and then kill their babies. If they were not “liberated” then they would not be subjected to this. It is men who do NOT honor women and just want to taste the milk without taking care of the cow who support the so called “womens rights”

The big argument against this at the time was—I believe—that they’d have to let women serve in the military, in combat roles.

Probably not so much that as they’re already a few combat roles open to women. Likely the con argument would be that women would have to register for a draft if that occurred again. Wouldn’t want that to happen to young Malkins and Coulters out there. They’re desperately needed on the homefront.

I seriously cannot come up with an opposition to this that does not involve blantant sexism. Therefore, the reasons why the mere mention of this thing sends hardcore conservatives into apoplectic fits remain a mystery.

Well, some people still do, like Gary Birdsong (more pictures here)—although he may have changed his mind about the ‘barefoot’ part—but pretty much all the actual college students he encounters repudiate him for it.

Ahhh, Gary Birdsong. There’s a guy I won’t forget. When he shows up at colleges and starts preaching, it’s quite the memorable spectacle.

As long as the unisex bathroom lives up to this standard, rather than being pulled down to the smelly, unflushed-toilet-standard that seems to exemplify most men’s bathrooms, I’m all for it.

Hm. We had unisex bathrooms in my college dorm (sorry, Mom). And despite what your active little minds are conjuring up right now, everybody was pretty respectful of each other. Although there WERE a few funny moments when a visiting male would unwittingly use the urinal (left over from when it was an all-male dorm), and would be quite startled to see a bunch of girls walking in.

As soon as I find a unisex bathroom, I’m going to go in, piss on the floor, write subliterate graffiti and steal all the paper towels. Let women see what it’s like to share the bathroom with those pigs!

Although there WERE a few funny moments when a visiting male would unwittingly use the urinal (left over from when it was an all-male dorm), and would be quite startled to see a bunch of girls walking in.

If this scenario becomes the norm here in America, the terrorists have won.

Oh gods, does that mean Mummy Schlafly will rise from her crypt and go forth unto Congress with home-made Hemlock Berry Pies? Help.

While unisex toilets stick in my mind, another scare tactic Shryllis used during her hypocritcal crusade to keep women in their place was aimed at women who did not work. Did these ladies really want a bunch of young perky women working side-by-side with their hubbies? Possibly late at night even? The unspoken messages of course were young perky harlot would flirt with hubby and hubby being a big old horn dog would run off with her. But of course it isn’t like Shryll thinks all men are bastards or anything…

Does anyone know the ramifications this amendment would have on VAWA? I’m curious if you guys think this would blow portions of U.S. v. Morrison out of the water or not. I’m not a lawyer, but I knows some of youse is.

On more than one occasion at college, while I was in the john or the shower, a couple women would walk in to sit down and chat with each other (they did ask if I minded, which of course, I did not). It wasn’t unisex or anything, they just liked sitting on the mens’ room floor talking, for whatever reason. I don’t really understand it, but I have to assume some amount of alcohol was involved.

United States v. Morrison invalidated a section of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 which gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court, although program funding remains unaffected. Congress enacted this private civil remedy because of statistical evidence that states did not prosecute crimes against women as often as crimes against men. The Court majority ruled that VAWA exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

The reasoning behind Morrison was that the 14th gives congress the power to create legislation that would enforce equal protection, but only directed at state actors. The part of VAWA that was struck down “gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court.” In other words, it would have passed muster if it had instead let victims instead sue the state for failing to provide them equal protection.

So, I don’t really know how a 52 word amendment would have room for language that would permit that part of VAWA (presuming the reasoning in Morrison is correct).

So we’re going to be able to sue for pay outcomes now? Great, soon all the groups that have come out as “unequally paid” (short people, unattractive people, bald people, etc.) will all get their own Amendment to the Constitution! What a country!

another scare tactic Shryllis used during her hypocritcal crusade to keep women in their place was aimed at women who did not work. Did these ladies really want a bunch of young perky women working side-by-side with their hubbies? Possibly late at night even?

That one is still in currency, believe it or not. Those “battle kits” include advice about how to avoid on-the-job contact with women you find attractive, because real live hotties are just as bad as porn. And we all know about porn:

“The soldiers come home, many are addicted to this type of sexual stimulation and either consciously or subconsciously they begin to compare their current relationship with the visual/Internet/virtual reality that they are used to and unfortunately, the real woman — wife or girlfriend — rarely can measure up,”

Except, of course, that we real live girls have, you know, skin. Soft, smooth, right there snuggling up next to you where you can touch it, skin. duh.

This is just a ROFL ridiculous fear – I love it. These guys should be worried about their lonely wives back home, but instead, they’re scared that after months in the field with nothing but a magazine to keep them company, soldiers will return home and be all like “meh” about getting laid. Classic.

So, I don’t really know how a 52 word amendment would have room for language that would permit that part of VAWA (presuming the reasoning in Morrison is correct).

Well, maybe you’re right. But I still think it’d be up for another Supreme Court case on the matter. Then again, with the Bushie appointees, the results would probably be the same. If not worse. BTW, I agree with Breyer’s dissent, although most of it rests on the Commerce Clause issue:

This consideration, however, while serious, does not reflect a jurisprudential defect, so much as it reflects a practical reality. We live in a Nation knit together by two centuries of scientific, technological, commercial, and environmental change. Those changes, taken together, mean that virtually every kind of activity, no matter how local, genuinely can affect commerce, or its conditions, outside the State–at least when considered in the aggregate. Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U.S., at 251. And that fact makes it close to impossible for courts to develop meaningful subject-matter categories that would exclude some kinds of local activities from ordinary Commerce Clause “aggregation” rules without, at the same time, depriving Congress of the power to regulate activities that have a genuine and important effect upon interstate commerce.

So we’re going to be able to sue for pay outcomes now? Great, soon all the groups that have come out as “unequally paid” (short people, unattractive people, bald people, etc.) will all get their own Amendment to the Constitution! What a country!

So you’re fine with women making less money for equal work? I’m glad you came out on the record for that one. I think you should oppose this Amendment vocally, using your “argument” that its passage will enable ugly people to clog out court systems with frivolous lawsuits every time they get turned down for a modeling gig.

The 15 states that have not ratified the ERA are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

Women of course deserve equal rights. But so do the poor people who cannot afford decent attorneys (including myself thank you very much) and many other groups. And yet we do not introduce an amendment on their behalf. Why? Because equality for all is implied in the Constitution.

Our society is really unfair towards women, but a new amendment (more accurately, re-proposing an old amendment) to the Constitution will not adequately address the underlying problems of gender inequality.

These guys should be worried about their lonely wives back home, but instead, they’re scared that after months in the field with nothing but a magazine to keep them company, soldiers will return home and be all like “meh” about getting laid. Classic.

Isn’t it normally the other way around? Guy goes off on tour, girl gets loney and starts taking care of her personal business with some sort of vegetable or pool care specialist?

You know what else would really help combat the divorce rate in the military? Stop extending tours of duty by 4-6 months so we can “surge” some more, stop redeploying troops after less than 2 years of downtime, perhaps do a bit more to treat PTSD and other physical and mental injuries, and maybe just maybe pay soldiers a living wage.

And Amanda, it will be opposed, but will help turn off nearly everybody under the age of 30 from the GOP. That generation does not buy the homophobia, so I expect they will be repulsed by the sexism of a lot of the 28%ers.

Good question from Scruffy as to whether it would reverse the finding on Morrison. I expect not, even though it uses equal rights terminology instead of equal protection. Even though it compels equal rights/protection in state courts, it would not expand federal power at the expense of the states.

And Amanda, it will be opposed, but will help turn off nearly everybody under the age of 30 from the GOP. That generation does not buy the homophobia, so I expect they will be repulsed by the sexism of a lot of the 28%ers.

Not everyone under 30 is as enlightened or progressive as you’d think.

Good question from Scruffy as to whether it would reverse the finding on Morrison. I expect not, even though it uses equal rights terminology instead of equal protection. Even though it compels equal rights/protection in state courts, it would not expand federal power at the expense of the states.

Shit!

Honestly, though, I didn’t like that case the first time around. So any excuse to overturn it would be cool with me. I just don’t expect Scalito to concur with my distaste for their faux federalism.

Scalia is a fair weather federalist in any case. Just one of the shifting covers for his true ideology, which is some cryptic flavor of authoritarianism.

Very true.

It’s odd, I haven’t heard very many chest-thumpings in favor of originalism lately. Not since, say, early 2005 or so. Am I missing them, or did they just sort of peter out right around the time the Terri Schiavo case came along?

Isn’t it normally the other way around? Guy goes off on tour, girl gets loney and starts taking care of her personal business with some sort of vegetable or pool care specialist?

Bingo. Guy on tour probably gets some emergency nookie, too, but girl back home discovers meaningful relationship with a new supportive friend (probably not the pool guy, but yeah, that’s it). The thing is that being deployed is rarely conducive to developing a new, serious and/or lasting romantic interest – even with the alluring Ms. Rosie Palm. Being back home, things are still semi-normal, and we human types tend to get most seriously attached to attractive people who fit into our normal routines.

OR, if the guy overseas is really unlucky, he’s like the best man at my wedding who’s been deployed in Afghanistan and/or Iraq for four years out of the last five. He and his wife had been trying to have kids before the deployments started but no luck (war as birth control: whodathunkit?) So there she was, alone in Fayetteville NC, with no husband, no kids, a lousy job, and a gal needs a hobby, you know?

So when Brian came home he discovered that, to fill her days and give herself something to love and take care of, she had started adopting cats. Lots and lots of cats. And puppies. Many puppies. Also, a couple of birds. Total number of animals that he knew nothing about until he walked in the door of his house: 15.

I guess the only real argument I can come up with against the ERA right now is that it is unnecessary.

Though I’m still thinking about the unisex bathrooms, I’d say I could pretty much go with that.

However, I could see another argument made. At one time women, and probably some men too, argued that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause gave women the right to vote. A case based on that reached the SCOTUS. But, the justices at the time ruled the 14th didn’t apply, and since the Constitution didn’t expressly give women the right to vote, they didn’t have it.

Teddy Roosevelt’s party was the first to champion the right of women to vote. Later led to the 19th giving them that right. Too bad there aren’t Republicans like Teddy anymore.

Given the shit today, I can see the argument that it would be nice not to have your rights determined by the mindset of whoever is currently sitting in the SCOTUS or interpreted/enforced by the current AG. Having rights clearly expressed in the Constitution makes them harder to deny. Anyway, I could go with kicking the amendment to the states and let them decide.

And that assumes that people will even bother to oppose it at all.

LOL. Where have you been for the past six years? “You need to be patriotic giving up your rights without question so we can preserve our democracy, otherwise the terrorists have won.”

You could go on and on with that kind of retarded pabulum from the 28%ers. Yeah, they’d oppose this ERA, because otherwise they wouldn’t be supporting the troops and the gay agenda would win, or something like that.

The soldiers come home, many are addicted to this type of sexual stimulation and either consciously or subconsciously they begin to compare their current relationship with the visual/Internet/virtual reality that they are used to…

Ah yes. This is the “Women should hate porn because men are controlled by their dicks” argument reloaded. Quick! Burn the girlie mags! Sever the intertubes! Throw on these long loose fitting robes and head coverings ladies! The men can’t control their animalistic urges! Gah.

As you say, it is pure crap. If you give a person the choice of a) An image, a bottle of lotion and some hankies or b) A real human, if the subject chooses a) there is a problem that has nothing to do with the availablity of porn.

I wonder exactly how much time soldiers in combat situations have to sit down with a computer or magazine for a date with Rosy Palm? Give me a fucking break. I also wonder if anyone with a spouse or partner overseas sits around thinking “Dear me, I hope he’s not looking at porn!”

As for originalism, Scalia got off that train some years ago, and has been pushing a straight textualist line when it pleases him. This is not always a bad thing as long as he sticks to statutory analysis and keeps out of constitutional law.

So you’re fine with women making less money for equal work? I’m glad you came out on the record for that one. I think you should oppose this Amendment vocally

Showing my point that this Amendment is a useless, unnecessary political football. You can’t rationalize the need for it, but for poltics’ sake, you damn sure want its opponents to try to rationalize any “no” vote.

Unless you’re willing to pass amendments for all the other unequally-paid groups, why are you for this amendment? Why do you hate short, ugly people????

Showing my point that this Amendment is a useless, unnecessary political football. You can’t rationalize the need for it, but for poltics’ sake, you damn sure want its opponents to try to rationalize any “no” vote.

I believe I already gave you a reason: to combat gender-based wage disparity. A secondary reason might be to combat violence against women, if we can get this Morrison case outflanked with a new Constitutional Amendment. (We probably can’t, but it’s worth a shot.)

You responded with snark about ugly people, short people, and bald people. Your opposition is based on a “slippery slope” rationale that passing one Consitutional Amendment will lead to a flurry of other, trivial Constitutional Amendments. In other words, you’re either a moron or an extremely languid spoofer. I’ll be charitable and assume the latter.

Unless you’re willing to pass amendments for all the other unequally-paid groups, why are you for this amendment? Why do you hate short, ugly people????

That’s the spoofiest shit ever, jerkoff. It’s not even funny. Knock it off. You’ve got to brush up on your spoofing before you use it on people.

Sounds like a good thing to me, but I have some caveats:
1. Would this force integrated prisons? If so there will be a lot of women raped due to our shitty prison system.
2. Would this get rid of women only sports teams? That would probably destroy college/high school sports for women. I am not sure if I want to see sports go this direction.

Other question, if we are going to make the relationship equal between the sexes, are we going to give the decision on aborting or giving up a baby for adoption to both sexes? Currently women have the power and a lot of guys are left supporting a child they did not want. This hardly seems fair in light of our quest for equality.

Showing my point that this Amendment is a useless, unnecessary political football. You can’t rationalize the need for it, but for poltics’ sake, you damn sure want its opponents to try to rationalize any “no” vote.

Why on earth would anyone want to rationalize a “no” vote? Is there a single non-dingbat reason to vote against it? You speak as if there are sound but politically unpopular principles involved.

Showing my point that this Amendment is a useless, unnecessary political football. You can’t rationalize the need for it, but for poltics’ sake, you damn sure want its opponents to try to rationalize any “no” vote.

If we can illegalize flag burning, a key element of the gay marriage wedding ceremony will become impossible to perform. So we won’t even need an Amendment banning gay marriage.

So, really, the flag burning Amendment limits the number of trivial Amendments to come, you see. Because after all, when discussing an Amendment, the most important issue is whether or not the next Amendment’ll be all stupid and shit. After all, that idiotic First Amendment was quickly followed by the Second Amendment, which made even less sense.

Sounds like a good thing to me, but I have some caveats:
1. Would this force integrated prisons? If so there will be a lot of women raped due to our shitty prison system.
2. Would this get rid of women only sports teams? That would probably destroy college/high school sports for women. I am not sure if I want to see sports go this direction.

I assume it wouldn’t require integrated prisons, sports teams, bathrooms, or anything else; it would just require equal funding for both. (Equal funding per capita, within the same district, by government entities, etc.) But I’m pretty sure that’s taken care of as well, at least for the case of sports teams. Something called Title IX, unless that’s just a state law?

I assume it wouldn’t require integrated prisons, sports teams, bathrooms, or anything else; it would just require equal funding for both. (Equal funding per capita, within the same district, by government entities, etc.) But I’m pretty sure that’s taken care of as well, at least for the case of sports teams. Something called Title IX, unless that’s just a state law?

Are you sure? I don’t think you can do separate but equal based on the history of US constitutional law with this amendment. A lot of male sports teams allow women to compete for slots now. I doubt a judge would find something equal when Women can compete for the men’s team, but men can’t for the woman’s team.

The issue that always comes to mind is that society has a certain level of segregation between men and women (Not saying that’s bad or good) and based on the fact we have completely trashed separate but equal on the question of race (This is a good thing), why wouldn’t the same standard be applied to sex?

Are you sure? I don’t think you can do separate but equal based on the history of US constitutional law with this amendment. A lot of male sports teams allow women to compete for slots now. I doubt a judge would find something equal when Women can compete for the men’s team, but men can’t for the woman’s team.

Here’s a link. And it’s not state law, it’s federal after all. It seems that teams can meet the requirements by allowing unisex teams, OR by providing equal funding to segregated teams, and it applies to anyone who wants to get federal funding. Wikipedia doesn’t say if the Supreme Court has said if the “separate but equal” ruling should apply to this, and after all, there are a number of differences between the situations.

And Amanda, it will be opposed, but will help turn off nearly everybody under the age of 30 from the GOP. That generation does not buy the homophobia, so I expect they will be repulsed by the sexism of a lot of the 28%ers.

Yeah, but will their disgust and repulsion propel them into the voter’s booth or will the general apathy of the mighty middle once again allow only partisans to make decisions for us all?